Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

make an example of a forgotten plot thread that isn't a plot hole, and explain why it doesn't qualify as plot hole.

What are you, my English teacher?

Kumasawa's apparent association with Beatrice is played up as considerably more important and meaningful than "she was just in on it and helped raise her." But in the end, that appears to be all we get out of it. It's not developed, but it doesn't create a problem with the plot such that it could be considered a "hole."

Kasumi's importance largely is ignored in the end, but it really doesn't matter what happened to her and when and whether it ever really did or whether she ever really existed or whatever. So it isn't really a plot hole if she's not talked about much later.

Kinzo's wife is largely not mentioned in Chiru. Her suspicions about Kinzo are never explained. That she even existed seems to have been ignored or forgotten. However, it's not a plot hole because nothing she ever did apparently went beyond having suspicions, and we have enough information to understand that her suspicions were reasonable even though we don't know a lot of other things about why she initially became suspicious or how she felt about it in the end.

Okonogi's "world peace" line apparently doesn't mean anything, but it isn't a plot hole because whether he says it or not doesn't appear to have any effect on the narrative.

How did Yasu manage to set all that stuff up with a reputable bank and not explain or identify herself or reveal where all that shit came from? It isn't said, but it's potentially possible for her to have done so, so it's merely an underexplained action and not a plot hole. That she was able to do it is not really an issue, so it doesn't cause you to go "wait, that's not possible." You might say "I wonder how," but that's not a plot hole.

Most things about Asumu are grossly underdeveloped for such an influential person in Battler's life. However, it turns out almost none of them matter because they're not brought up and since we know so little, we can't see any contradictions that might have existed from her influence (i.e. "But Battler wouldn't do that because Asumu always said <x>" is not something we can say).

The story has a lot of unanswered questions or underdeveloped characters and themes. Unanswered questions are not plot holes, however. A plot hole is an inconsistency, impossibility, or contradictory bit of information that causes the narrative to stop flowing properly. None of the things I just talked about damage the flow of the narrative, and most of them wouldn't even change anything if they were completely excised. If Asumu were not even named and nothing about Kinzo's dead wife were ever even spoken about, nothing would change. It's interesting and maybe not developing those things is a problem, but it isn't a plot hole.

Not explaining Yasu's logistics very well is also a problem with the plotting (outside of Our Confession maybe), but it isn't a plot hole.

You're quotes all suck. Bad. And I don't like the way you like to drop out important context. Read them more carefully so I don't have to do it for you.

Can you just stop with the stupid display of hostility? I think you're being an absolute retarded asshole, but it doesn't do any good to tell you, doesn't it? Just stick with facts. Or simply stop answering if this irritates you that much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Academic Douglas Walton used the following example of a fallacious circular argument:

"Wellington is in New Zealand.
Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand"[3]

He notes that, although the argument is deductively valid, it cannot prove that Wellington is in New Zealand because it contains no evidence that is distinct from the conclusion. The context - that of an argument - means that the proposition does not meet the requirement of proving the statement, thus it is a fallacy.

Although bolded. This refers to the formal validity. The logic itself in the context of an argument isn't valid. In other words what you quoted states that the proposition in itself is valid therefore it isn't a fallacy, but it only becomes a fallacy, therefore invalid, in the context of an argument.

In the end what you fail to realize is that it's the very fact of assuming what you need to argue that makes a circular reasoning a logical fallacy. When you extrapolate a circular reasoning from the context of a discussion the very premise that makes it an invalid logic doesn't exist anymore.

For example "Humans are mortal therefore humans are mortal". this is both formally valid and sound (defined as an argument whose premise is true), then how would it be a logical fallacy according to you definition? But a circular logic is defined as a logical fallacy, so you're missing something here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wanderer

I don't, because I'm not assuming that Yasu and Touya are unrelated persons. That, my friend, is what you are doing.

No I don't. For the sake of the discussion I never assume what I need to argue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wanderer

My argument goes like this:

Ikuko adopted and hid an amnesiac Battler.

It's generally unlikely for people, that when they run into amnesiacs that are complete strangers, to adopt and hide them.

Therefore, the fact that Ikuko adopted Battler can serve as evidence that she knew who he was (which suggests that Ikuko is Yasu... or Asumu!).

Or Rosa, or Kyrie, or Natsuhi or anyone that ever knew Battler before, according to this reasoning.

But the reasoning doesn't really work in the first place, because people normally do not adopt other people just because they know them, they'd normally bring them to a hospital.
the two cases
person adopting random amnesiac
and
person adopting known amnesiac
aren't that much different in their scare likelyness to happen.

Quote:

What are you, my English teacher?

It's not like I would have given you a bad vote if you didn't answer.
I just wanted to make sure I understood what you mean before answering. I think you've been more than clear (in only asked one example).

So then I ask you. The infamous scene of the parlor of EP5, couldn't be defined as a plot hole, if I refuse to accept as intended by the author and valid the various explanations proposed by fans?

Well, it could be a plot hole. People have thought of it as such. Other people say there is an explanation.

I'd say it's probably a plot hole, but it could also be an example of a property or aspect of the narrative that just wasn't explained properly and thus appears to be a plot hole to people who are incredulous about the explanation as written, when the explanation may indeed cover it.

Well, it could be a plot hole. People have thought of it as such. Other people say there is an explanation.

I'd say it's probably a plot hole, but it could also be an example of a property or aspect of the narrative that just wasn't explained properly and thus appears to be a plot hole to people who are incredulous about the explanation as written, when the explanation may indeed cover it.

I agree with that.

I can make another example, but here some people might not agree with me. I consider a plot hole even a case in which a certain character should logically do something but conveniently doesn't because the plot requires for him to fail.

Therefore the fact that Erika isn't even thinking about the possibility of shkanon, given that she was always shown to be capable of out of the box thinking (bordering with ridiculous) and that it didn't really required such an ingenius mind, can also be seen as a plot hole.

I think it's a plot hole given her characterization the entire episode of asking for incredibly specific definitions and then not doing that at any point where it would be necessary, and also stopping with her questioning when she has no apparent reason to need to do so.

However, that might be less a plot hole and more poor characterization, where she's alternately portrayed as ruthlessly cunning and a bumbling incompetent. Vaguely like Battler himself, but not executed correctly.

The entirety of "Battler Solves the Logic Error" is basically predicated on the notion that Erika could have asked a bunch of things but didn't, and the consequences of leaving those questions both unasked and unanswered. It's a joke, but it's partially expressing my frustrations with the entirety of Dawn. It could have been a much better episode, but it got lost in its own gimmick.

However, that might not necessarily be a plot hole so much as just shoddy presentation. Erika not asking isn't the problem, it's Erika not seemingly wanting to ask. There would be no problem, really, if Erika tried to ask but was forbidden from doing so, or asked and Battler was evasive.

Also, and I just have to keep pointing this out: You can't define personality death as a personality "never acting again" or never being able to act again, because in literally every instance we have of personality death it's possible for a personality to come back and they do come back. If you can (and do!) come back, your personality isn't really dead. Dead things don't come back to life. Calling it "death" is cheapening death. "Death" is when Shannon kills her body. Shannon personality-dying is just going to sleep. At best, she's dormant and could return under some circumstances, but may not; when she shoots herself in the forehead, she's D-E-A-D. There is a difference, so it's unfair to describe both as the same thing.

To be honest 'resurrection' exists even in real life.
Skipping the ones done by Jesus a person can be declared 'dead' and then 'revived' by quick medical aid. It's just that in this case death generally last few minutes (and as of late the definition of dead had been updated in many countries to make sure that it means 'irreversible death' while previously you were dead when your heart stopped and you weren't breathing anymore... no idea if the definition had been updated in Japan as well).

Due to this Ryukishi might have thought it was perfectly fine to have a type of death from which you can be resurrected.

Now... I still don't like it though I guess part of the problem is that Umineko is written as such we think we can trust Beato on a certain level... that's actually more than we should give her credit for.

In more than one Christie's mystery the culprit is also the narrator.
The narration is reliable exept for the parts in which the narrator/culprit avoided facts like 'after this I killed the victim' or 'I pretended to speak at the phone with a certain guy but I was actually talking with someone else' or 'once alone I removed all the evidence of my trick to kill the victim' and so on.
In short it skipped some parts and was misleading.

I guess Ryukishi pushed it to an extreme and thought it was a fair trick because, despite all the ramblings about trusting Beato... well, Beato is the culprit for her own admission so we should have known better than to trust her blindly even when she was using red.

I still don't like it, I don't know if I'll ever like it but I'll give Ryukishi the benefit of doubt on the topic he thought it was a legittimate trick to use a misleading definition of 'death'. I guess I just won't agree with him.

I still don't like it, I don't know if I'll ever like it but I'll give Ryukishi the benefit of doubt on the topic he thought it was a legittimate trick to use a misleading definition of 'death'. I guess I just won't agree with him.

Well, he obviously thought it was a legitimate trick, else he wouldn't have used it. However personally I think it was a bad idea to use any kind of misleading definition in red truths.

The red truth should have been a tool you could trust in unconditionally (and as such it was presented) and should have merely worked as a crutch for your reasoning, while the mystery and the mystery alone should have been the one you would be required to focus on and which you would need to find the trick in.

With misleading red truths, it isn't the actual mystery that tricks you, but the red truths themselves. It's only natural that disappointment comes from people that expected a difficult to solve riddle and realized it was only difficult because of a misleading input given.

This is a trust issue, we have to trust Ryu in when he says that though she COULD return, if deemed dead she never will. I think this is how it is meant to apply to Battler too, sure Tohya can remember his memories, but Battler himself is never going to act again.

Quote:

Skipping the ones done by Jesus a person can be declared 'dead' and then 'revived' by quick medical aid.

I brought that one up once, no-one seemed to like it, and to be fair, it doesn't really apply in this situation, as I don't believe it was the trick Ryu was intending to use.

Quote:

I'm going to laugh at you, because there's no goddamn difference.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, because I believe if you take Kanon as truly being a separate person, even if you can't tell the difference between them they are separate. In my opinion I can recreate a painting I once painted, using the same materials and everything, and it could be impossible to tell them apart, but they still aren't the same painting.

After all, as someone once said, would you say that if an identical twin pretending to be Kanon and indistinguishable from him tricked Jessica then they are the same person? We probably won't ever agree because you and I approach Kanon from different perspective.

Quote:

because absence of evidence to a reliable perspective is not evidence of absence

I understand the premise, though I am amused you are essentially playing a devil's proof against me. Well I am sure we can agree using Battler's perspective we have reasonable evidence Kanon and Shannon acted independently of each other, and we have no such evidence of Evatrice (in fact, no-one outside of the fantasy narrative even mentioned her). However, the fact that Eva may possibly be the culprit and that it is possible there was a part of Eva that had those emotions, I do not feel there is sufficient evidence to state it acted independently of her as to be legitimately declared dead. That is once again a matter of opinion, and of course as is the blessing with Umineko you are free to theorise, but while it is possible, I don't think it is as damning as you claim.

As for the playing with reds, I sort of liked it. Maybe it's because I often use that method of stating facts to twist the truth as a joke on my friends, but I thought it was fun. In fact I bet you didn't even mind it when it was being tricky but not about personality death yourself.

There's to say in that bit he was trying to trick us into thinking that Tohya was Ange (who supposedly fell from a building) so if he were to say the memory loss was due to a car incident or drowing we would figure out immediately it's not her.

With all due respect to them, I seriously ... wonder about the Japanese readers, sometimes. 'Cause I admit that I too thought the person was Ange ... for, like, about 20 seconds and immediately went "Oh, I guess it's just Battler, somehow." Apparently they seriously thought Natsuhi was guilty, after Alliance, and a large number of people gave up when Kanon first got his sword, even though that's when the "trick" of the story became sort of obvious. I really do wonder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjblue1

You got me curious. So what's your reasoning for random!Ikuko to pick up an unknown guy/an amnesiac Battler and keep him hidden for a while?

I mostly accept the story as presented. She's "eccentric", and possibly very lonely as well. It would be VERY helpful if we had been told when they wrote and published Banquet, because the timing could seriously affect her way of deciding to keep him hidden for so long.

I make the assumption that she learns his identity very quickly, and decides not to subject her new, only friend to the public turmoils Eva is going through. Also, I'm sure Tohya is just so sexy when he's desperately reassembling his shattered psyche.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjblue1

(Yes, it's weird how Ange swallows it all. It's almost as if she doesn't want to think about it and she doesn't care anymore having her brother as long as she knows he's alive. Probably I'm phraising this the wrong way but... well, it gives an odd feeling to me. Plus the situation is very unnatural and yet for Ange it's all fine.)

Agreed. She didn't ask any of the more pertinent questions (Why didn't you take my brother to a hospital?!" or, "What do you MEAN you and Eva just 'split up'??" I think it's as you say, at that point she didn't really care so long as he was alive.

About Yasu possibly protecting Battler from Eva ... well, not to repeat myself, but Eva has no basis on which to make a claim about what happened on Rokkenjima. If she thinks Battler is guilty, she can't prove it, and really, if she sees that he's clearly amnesiac, shje'd PROBABLY bite her lip and get over it. Also, I'd mention that Yasu never legally gained control over ANY of Kinzo's money, which was always controlled by Krauss. Well, we're told there was a will, but it was never put to use, so ... /shrug.

I'd also mention, as a side to Random!Ikuko, that Tohya mentions in the ??? "Yeah , so it turns out she wasn't lying about the stuff with her family", or something like that, so it sounded like he had checked it out himself a bit.

With all due respect to them, I seriously ... wonder about the Japanese readers, sometimes. 'Cause I admit that I too thought the person was Ange ... for, like, about 20 seconds and immediately went "Oh, I guess it's just Battler, somehow."

Uh...both I and everyone else I've ever talked to has always assumed that it was Ange, and had their mind blown when it was shown to be Battler in the ????. ...How could anyone not assume that? The game deliberately leads you to think so.

This is a trust issue, we have to trust Ryu in when he says that though she COULD return, if deemed dead she never will. I think this is how it is meant to apply to Battler too, sure Tohya can remember his memories, but Battler himself is never going to act again.

Again though, in the actual stories people do come back to life. If you say "well it's not them just an exact facsimile of them," you're playing the same game Ryukishi played in End and it isn't philosophically or rationally compelling. A person who is identical in every way to another person is essentially that person. This isn't normally possible, and we call it impersonation, but philosophically we can envision it.

Even in instances of impersonation, the rules become fuzzy with "personalities." Particularly when the argument is the impersonator is the person with that personality in the first place. It's like asking me, philosophically, to impersonate myself. I can try to exaggerate and affect my own mannerisms, contemplate how I would react to scenarios and pretend like that deliberation is necessary, and so forth, but would you ever realistically accuse me of not appropriately being myself?

If I can't impersonate myself, how exactly does this Shkanbeato construct manage to do it, when said construct is those characters, apparently fully consciously? This goes back to a long-ago discussion about the actual rules of operation of the character, none of which really make any sense. This example is just one of the ones that demonstrates that.

Quote:

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, because I believe if you take Kanon as truly being a separate person, even if you can't tell the difference between them they are separate. In my opinion I can recreate a painting I once painted, using the same materials and everything, and it could be impossible to tell them apart, but they still aren't the same painting.

After all, as someone once said, would you say that if an identical twin pretending to be Kanon and indistinguishable from him tricked Jessica then they are the same person? We probably won't ever agree because you and I approach Kanon from different perspective.

Well, they are (sort of, ignore that one would provably be distinguishable as older), unless you know differently. As you are the artist you'd know there are two paintings (though if I switched them up, could you tell at a glance which is which?). That's the problem with Kanon versus a painting. Kanon exists only as he is perceived. There is no Kanon as an individuated being. Kanon exists only as long as he's acknowledged as Kanon, and that which is acknowledged as Kanon is Kanon. It's not actually possible to impersonate him. Especially if you're his creator in the first place.

If Kanon did not behave as Kanon, Jessica would not have recognized him as such. Ergo, she actually recognized Kanon. Which means Kanon was there. Ryukishi (and Maria) already said appearance isn't important, so it doesn't matter if the person Jessica was talking to wasn't dressed as Kanon. She couldn't perceive Kanon's physical appearance, but responded to his voice and mannerisms. So... Kanon was there, which means Kanon was alive where once he was dead.

Quote:

I understand the premise, though I am amused you are essentially playing a devil's proof against me. Well I am sure we can agree using Battler's perspective we have reasonable evidence Kanon and Shannon acted independently of each other, and we have no such evidence of Evatrice (in fact, no-one outside of the fantasy narrative even mentioned her). However, the fact that Eva may possibly be the culprit and that it is possible there was a part of Eva that had those emotions, I do not feel there is sufficient evidence to state it acted independently of her as to be legitimately declared dead. That is once again a matter of opinion, and of course as is the blessing with Umineko you are free to theorise, but while it is possible, I don't think it is as damning as you claim.

It wasn't declared dead though, as Eva didn't die that episode. And actually saying Eva is alive doesn't preclude saying Culprit-Eva is dead, now does it? At least not according to "the rules."

We also have no actual evidence Shannon and Kanon acted "independently," at least in the sense of being distinct personalities. We can still always make the argument "in matter of fact, it was 'Beatrice' posing as two servants the whole time, and Battler was misled into believing in the existence of 'Shannon' and 'Kanon.'" It is true that we see them as two separate disguises and thus have some evidence for it, but going strictly off what Battler sees and knows it's possible he's merely being deceived by an actor.

Of course, if Shannon and Kanon exist only as they're perceived to begin with, you can argue that merely acknowledging who he's seeing makes it such that Shannon/Kanon is present. Indeed one could argue they exist only when Battler is observing them.

So when the wiki says you're wrong, then it's because it's badly worded. You're really convincing.

That's a delightful example of begging the question. I think your arrogant tone comes from this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

For example "Humans are mortal therefore humans are mortal". this is both formally valid and sound (defined as an argument whose premise is true), then how would it be a logical fallacy according to you definition? But a circular logic is defined as a logical fallacy, so you're missing something here.

But it wouldn't even be defined as a logical fallacy because it's not even an argument. It's not an attempt to persuade anyone of anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

We're not talking about circular logic here. I'm arguing that a logical fallacy can't be considered valid.

Then the argument you are making is irrelevant. You can't use a common quality of a group as a basis to claim a certain member of that group has that quality without including that member as part of that group in the first place.

Jan-Poo is making a claim about (all) logical fallacies.
Some logical fallacies are circular logic fallacies.
Therefore, Jan-Poo is making a claim about circular logic fallacies.

"Informal fallacies of deductive reasoning contain a fundamental disconnect between the premises and the conclusion that renders the argument invalid."

This quote isn't talking about "all logical fallacies" as you imply it does. It's only talking about a certain type of fallacy called informal fallacies of deductive reasoning, which does not include circular logic, since circular logic, while being informal, is not a fallacy of deductive reasoning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

And nowhere it is said that it is valid in that article.

Yeah I know. I only linked it as evidence that it's defined as an informal fallacy, because that fact alone invalidated your argument:

"A well defined formal fallacy, logical fallacy or deductive fallacy, is typically called an invalid argument."

You need to pay attention to where the commas are: It's not talking about 3 types of fallacies (formal, logical, deductive) but 2 types (formal logical, formal deductive).

Circular logic is not a formal logical fallacy, but an informal logical fallacy; so the implicit argument that the evidence you were putting forward for is not valid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Although bolded. This refers to the formal validity. The logic itself in the context of an argument isn't valid. In other words what you quoted states that the proposition in itself is valid therefore it isn't a fallacy, but it only becomes a fallacy, therefore invalid, in the context of an argument.

Only from the assumption that a logic-lingo term "invalid argument" exists where the word "invalid" is referring to a different definition than "makes incorrect logical inferences". I believe the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that this term exists and not on me to demonstrate that it does not exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

No I don't. For the sake of the discussion I never assume what I need to argue.

I'm still not convinced. Particularly because it only makes sense to simply refer to Battler as "an amnesiac" when assuming the person adopting him has no relationship with him. It's a very poor way to compare the relative relationships (Yasu-to-Battler vs Stranger-to-Battler), and it almost fooled me.

By the way, I don't think such a mistake is hard to make.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

But the reasoning doesn't really work in the first place, because people normally do not adopt other people just because they know them, they'd normally bring them to a hospital.
the two cases
person adopting random amnesiac
and
person adopting known amnesiac
aren't that much different in their scare likelyness to happen.

Of course there are more factors. I was just going as far as to demonstrate that it wasn't circular.

I don't think you can win any argument claiming- given the same encounter with Battler- that Yasu would not be more likely to adopt Battler than a stranger would.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kealym

I'd also mention, as a side to Random!Ikuko, that Tohya mentions in the ??? "Yeah , so it turns out she wasn't lying about the stuff with her family", or something like that, so it sounded like he had checked it out himself a bit.

Hum, really? Exact quote wanted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drifloon

Uh...both I and everyone else I've ever talked to has always assumed that it was Ange, and had their mind blown when it was shown to be Battler in the ????. ...How could anyone not assume that? The game deliberately leads you to think so.

Didn't take me long; basically I suspected it wasn't her after I figured out the setting where "mystery person" was found didn't really match well with anywhere Ange might realistically be.

But it wouldn't even be defined as a logical fallacy because it's not even an argument. It's not an attempt to persuade anyone of anything.

That's what I'm telling. The logical fallacy in a circular logic has nothing to do with either formal validity or soundness, the fallacy lies on the presumption that you can use it as a persuasive argument.
If you pull a circular logic in the middle of a discussion (and we were discussing) then you're either pulling something completely irrelevant or you're blatantly falling into a logical fallacy.

What I told you back then was that I didn't understand the relevance of your point unless you were assuming your very premise which, as I pointed out, would have been a circular logic.

If you had simply explained your point rather than going on a tangent on how circular logic isn't wrong per se, disregarding the fact that I was assuming the context of a discussion, since it was what we were doing, we wouldn't be arguing about all this pholosophical "crap" (as you like to define it).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Then the argument you are making is irrelevant. You can't use a common quality of a group as a basis to claim a certain member of that group has that quality without including that member as part of that group in the first place.

Jan-Poo is making a claim about (all) logical fallacies.
Some logical fallacies are circular logic fallacies.
Therefore, Jan-Poo is making a claim about circular logic fallacies.

"Informal fallacies of deductive reasoning contain a fundamental disconnect between the premises and the conclusion that renders the argument invalid."

This quote isn't talking about "all logical fallacies" as you imply it does. It's only talking about a certain type of fallacy called informal fallacies of deductive reasoning, which does not include circular logic, since circular logic, while being informal, is not a fallacy of deductive reasoning.

Point taken, but you misunderstood my intentions.
I was merely providing evidences that logical fallacies are defined as invalid. Whenever you try to define a group there is almost always the inherent problem that you can't check all the single individuals of that group.
If you thought that you can only define a group if you find proof for that for every single individual of that group, then you wouldn't be able to state that "all crows are black" and so on.
Of course if I show you 100 black crows that still doesn't fully demonstrate the theory, but it's also wrong to state they don't mean a thing, in fact the theory can be considered valid as long as you don't find a crow that isn't black.

I've shown you several black crows, I'm not saying that this proves definitely that I'm right, but it's your turn to prove that there is a crow that isn't black.
In other words show me where it is stated that a logical fallacy can be considered valid in a general sense and not in its specific parts.

The example of the circular logic you've used doesn't work because in the case in which it can be considered valid, it isn't a logical fallacy anymore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Circular logic is not a formal logical fallacy, but an informal logical fallacy; so the implicit argument that the evidence you were putting forward for is not valid.

As I explained above, I'm not making that kind of mistake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Only from the assumption that a logic-lingo term "invalid argument" exists where the word "invalid" is referring to a different definition than "makes incorrect logical inferences". I believe the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that this term exists and not on me to demonstrate that it does not exist.

From the very beginning you made the wrong assumption that I was using a specific philosophical lingo. The term "valid" has a wider meaning than the specific case you're talking about.

If the premises are not jointly asserted, your logic is not valid.
Clearly outside of academic circles "valid" and "sound" are synonyms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wanderer

I don't think you can win any argument claiming- given the same encounter with Battler- that Yasu would not be more likely to adopt Battler than a stranger would.

For the time being I'll disregard the fact that your theory is actually that Yasu adopted a stranger (you claimed that she only though about making him Battler later, right?), which isn't different from a stranger adopting another stranger. So in this case I assume Tohya is Battler.

I will also disregard that there are other people outside Yasu that aren't stranger to Battler.

Let's make this case even more clear-cut, and let's assume that if Beatrice encountered Battler she would definitely adopt him, that is a 100% probability.

If a stranger encountered Battler there's a very low probability that he would adopt him. Let's assume it's 1%, it's probably lower but for the sake of this logic experiment it doesn't matter (Yasu's probability isn't 100% either anyway).

Given these premises you can claim that the probability that Beatrice would adopt Battler is definitely higher than the probability that a stranger would do the same. Absolutely.

But you're forgetting that the fact that "Battler was adopted" is already known. While "who adopted Battler" is what we don't know.

Imagine that there are 10.000 cards that have a "stranger" on their front and a card that have "Yasu" on its front.

You know that the Yasu card has definitely Battler on its back, and you know that only 100 out of the 10.000 stranger cards have Battler on their back.

Now the card that you have in your hand was extracted randomly from the 10001 cards and it has Battler on its back, this is your known fact. You don't know what's behind it, and you need to use a statistical reasoning to infere what is more likely to be behind: Yasu or a Stranger?

You should be able to see that the fact that the Yasu card has a 100% of probability to have Battler on its back doesn't mean much in this case.
The probability that you have a stranger card in your hand is higher: 100 cases against 1.

Imagine that there are 10.000 cards that have a "stranger" on their front and a card that have "Yasu" on its front.

You know that the Yasu card has definitely Battler on its back, and you know that only 100 out of the 10.000 stranger cards have Battler on their back.

Now the card that you have in your hand was extracted randomly from the 10001 cards and it has Battler on its back, this is your known fact. You don't know what's behind it, and you need to use a statistical reasoning to infere what is more likely to be behind: Yasu or a Stranger?

You should be able to see that the fact that the Yasu card has a 100% of probability to have Battler on its back doesn't mean much in this case.
The probability that you have a stranger card in your hand is higher: 100 cases against 1.

Right but, what if I'm specifically looking only for Battler cards? Or more technically, what if Ikuko is specifically looking for Battler? The random chance analogy works only in the specific instance where Tohya actually is encountered and rescued at random. It's possible that chance is actually extremely low, but is markedly higher for anyone intentionally and deliberately seeking him out.

The problem is that "Ikuko = Yasu" and "Ikuko = Random Eccentric Interested in the Case" both have sufficient motive to be looking for Battler or someone like him, and both have incentive to hide him away once they find him. But the field could be narrowed significantly.

With all due respect to them, I seriously ... wonder about the Japanese readers, sometimes. 'Cause I admit that I too thought the person was Ange ... for, like, about 20 seconds and immediately went "Oh, I guess it's just Battler, somehow." Apparently they seriously thought Natsuhi was guilty, after Alliance, and a large number of people gave up when Kanon first got his sword, even though that's when the "trick" of the story became sort of obvious. I really do wonder.

Well, after what I've heard about it I wonder if the Japanese audience was, in fact, the intended audience or not. Though there were people who also solved some stuffs so maybe we shouldn't let the one who failed to become the portrait for the Japanese fandom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kealym

I mostly accept the story as presented. She's "eccentric", and possibly very lonely as well. It would be VERY helpful if we had been told when they wrote and published Banquet, because the timing could seriously affect her way of deciding to keep him hidden for so long.

I make the assumption that she learns his identity very quickly, and decides not to subject her new, only friend to the public turmoils Eva is going through. Also, I'm sure Tohya is just so sexy when he's desperately reassembling his shattered psyche.

While it's possible Ikuko is just who she says she is... well, somehow it had never sit well with me. Though maybe that was exactly what Ryukishi wanted. To create a situation in which there's no clear answer so it's up to the reader to chose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kealym

Agreed. She didn't ask any of the more pertinent questions (Why didn't you take my brother to a hospital?!" or, "What do you MEAN you and Eva just 'split up'??" I think it's as you say, at that point she didn't really care so long as he was alive.

Yes, somehow I got the feeling she really didn't want to know the truth anymore as long as he was back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kealym

About Yasu possibly protecting Battler from Eva ... well, not to repeat myself, but Eva has no basis on which to make a claim about what happened on Rokkenjima. If she thinks Battler is guilty, she can't prove it, and really, if she sees that he's clearly amnesiac, shje'd PROBABLY bite her lip and get over it. Also, I'd mention that Yasu never legally gained control over ANY of Kinzo's money, which was always controlled by Krauss. Well, we're told there was a will, but it was never put to use, so ... /shrug.

We know the money on the bank account was handed by Yasu. If it was a bribe it's possible she also wrote them or contacter them in any other manner than can be traced. Also likely all her money would come from Kinzo's gold.

While it can be debated that Kinzo owned the gold illegally so technically the siblings can't claim rights on it ifsomeone where to discover Ikuko isn't who she said to be thngs could turn unpleasant.

We don't really know if Eva can't prove something. She's not talking so we don't know which info she has nor we know what exactly remained of the place in which the crime took place.

Things that might look as nothing important, if placed in the right context, can become evidence.

And anyway if Eva were to be sure Battler was involved (regardless of this being a misunderstanding or not) she would likely accuse it and hope someone would manage to prove she's not lying. She lost her husband and son and, for all she knows, Battler might be faking his memory loss.

But the point isn't really what Eva can and can't do but what Yasu thinks Eva will do and how she fears it can evolve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kealym

I'd also mention, as a side to Random!Ikuko, that Tohya mentions in the ??? "Yeah , so it turns out she wasn't lying about the stuff with her family", or something like that, so it sounded like he had checked it out himself a bit.

I honestly don't remember this and need to check it over. All I can remember was he saying he checked her car.

Well the problem is that "Yasu is looking for battler" is still an unknown variable, that is a variable that needs to be demonstrated.

In the end the only premise we all agree about is that "An amnesiac was adopted". So while this is extremely improbable, since it is the known fact, we can ignore this implausibility when trying to evaluate the related variables.

I guess that if you theorize that Yasu escaped with Battler, then it wouldn't be a random encounter anymore. My example wouldn't work anymore.

It however still works in any other case where you theorize a random encounter, whether it is Yasu randomly finding Battler (I still consider it random even if she is actively searching him, unless she knew where to find him. Else it would be improbable for her to find him before someone else), Yasu finding a random amnesiac, or a stranger finding a random amnesiac.

Again specifically looking for a random ameniasac isn't acceptable unless you explain how exactly one can improve his chances to find such a person and to take her home.

But aside from all of that, in both Ikuko=Yasu and Ikuko=RandomStranger there is the possibility, that Tohya's memories about "Tohya's first encouncer with Ikuko" may have been manipulated by Ikuko. For example it is possible that Tohya was actually NEVER hit by a car, but by telling lies for a long time, she may have made him believe it happened like in the bits of EP8.

The first time i saw these scenes i doubted them. In the middle of EP8 there was suddenly some story about Battler/Tohya (i instantly knew it was him, because i got spoiled about that info), then suddenly it goes back to Ange. Also Ikuko's behavior seemed inconsistent, as sometimes she had the personality from the tea party and sometimes she was a very shy person, which remembered me a bit of chick Beatrice.

Again specifically looking for a random ameniasac isn't acceptable unless you explain how exactly one can improve his chances to find such a person and to take her home.

Well, we do know that apparently he was carried to a place near where she lived and may have been inclined to visit that area which would've led to her finding him. We don't know for example that perhaps, if Battler drifted to shore near there, lots of other stuff didn't too. Junk, refuse, bits of furniture, stuff like that. It's quite likely, and I think it would be much more probable that someone happened to be in the area more often looking through the debris for interesting clues or valuable items from the disaster (perhaps another message bottle...). That they hear about someone who they wonder might actually be a survivor then becomes an incidental result of being interested in the area for other purposes, and then they make it their mission to hunt him down. They come upon him injured somewhere and take him home to see who he is, and then they discover he's amnesiac and it goes from there.

If you happened to be interested in seeing what turned up (whether that be just objects of interest or survivors), you might be inclined to visit the area more frequently. If you hear about some homeless guy in the area, well... it makes a lot more sense than pure random coincidence no matter who Tohya and Ikuko are.

But again, that applies as much to Ikuko being just who she is as it would to Ikuko being Yasu. They'd both have incentive to go check out the area's beaches or whatever and see if anything intriguing turned up.

It doesn't matter if Shkanon is valid or not; it's irrelevant to what Renall's saying. if you define Scenario A as "Personality Death", and Scenario B as "Personality Death", and the two have nothing in common beyond superficial appearances, then "Personality Death" doesn't MEAN ANYTHING, meaning Everything is Personality Death if I decide it is.

If Kinzo is dead, I can just say Kinzo passed on bis name to Yasu along with the headship, and is now Goldsmith, who is still physically alive.

That's what Renall and I are both complaining about. You can justify it however you want, but there's a slippery slope created here that makes all speculation about Umineko absolutely meaningless and futile.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE SAYING.

We're saying that nothing makes Ryukishi's offered reasoning more valid than KnowNoMore's bullshit. It's a complete guessing game because Ryukishi has no rules that he himself does not contradict in Umineko...meaning the game is broken, and every answer is valid and there are no wrong answers.

You can just go with Ryukishi's explanation, if you don't mind that it's incomplete, poorly explained/demonstrated, and possibly even logically incoherent. Even if it wasn't any of those things, even if his answer was 'perfect', it still doesn't mean anything because Ryukishi invoked Death of the Author multiple times, meaning he willingly gave up his legitimacy as a creator and says 'your opinions are equivalent to mine own'.

Which is fine in of itself, except this is supposed to be a battle between us and him...and there's no answer key. And he has no faith in his own answer and seemingly no respect in the fanbase's.

The game's rules are broken, its themes are undermined by his own apparent cynicism (which I'm willing to give him a pass on due to the death of his best friend), and you leave the game entirely empty-handed. You can make up your own answer, but you could've done that WITHOUT reading Umineko all the way through. There is literally no pay off here, except one of pathos...which, again, he kind of undermines.

And this could've all been avoided if he didn't cheat in his own fucking novel like an amateur.

First of all... there's a difference between being frank and being just agressive. Chill and read again what you wrote. When you don't find anything wrong with what you wrote and say that is natural, I'm just gonna assume that you do not realize that you sound like you're raging instead of playing devil's advocate or giving some opinion.

In-gameboard, those are some rules that are followed to solve the crimes. You heard about CLUE? Yeah, they're playing that in the witches' hall. Its a GAMEboard! Taking possible scenarios from the games, we can grasp hints of what really happened, the motivations, the possibilities... our job as readers is fish those hints out and piece together a scenary that fits. A theory. A blue stake.

What is happening outside the catbox gives us the aftermath, some hints of what might have actually happened in Rokkenjima Prime and some drama with Ange. and nobody said that all the Gameboard rules applied to 'Rokkenjima Prime'. There are things, like the red text and the serial murders, that were put there to spice the forgeries.

You know why Battler's death has nothing to do with those rules? Because that's what happened in the world outside the catbox. No red texts, no magic, no 'gameboard rules' and certainly no 'character death'. That, as far as Umineko as a whole was concerned, happened outside Rokkenjima's mistery, 'In real Life' so to speak. He got brain damage. He stopped believing himself Battler. Arguably, he got better after some decades. Calling it 'personality death' like in-gameboard is just pulling an Irony as a Name.

So yeah. To solve the GAMES is possible through reasoning and following RULES like 'personality death' or the 'absolute red'.

Solving Umineko no Naku Koro Ni is not just explaining those forgeries. As objetive you have to try and figure the big picture that went boom on that 4-5 oct, and it's gonna be out of your reach if you try to connect and make everything about forgeries fit, because, as much as those games give us hints, their original purpose is to obscure the truth.

EP8 tried to make us remember that the catbox was cut from the real world in Umineko. Catbox, better known as Rokkenjima, is a fantasy setting for a game. Out of the game, things are not forced to follow the catbox rules. Isn't Ryuukishi's purpose to show us a layered work? You can't honestly say you believed that all the rules apply to all the layers... Meta world, game board, featherine's reality, Ange's 1998, the real 1998... they're not the same. If you forget about thinking in levels, you forget what the world of Umineko is about. There was some metaphor involving cheese and brains given by Erika that'd fit your situation if that's the case.

So maybe Ryuukishi's answers don't have any logic and sound as bull. Maybe some resources he used are seem as unfair. Remember that Ryuukishi is the witch that's trying to hide the truth? Remember that even the in-story detectives follow his lead to hide/ignore what could give away Beatrice's heart? Yeah, something like that. With detectives and witch hunters crying about the unfairness of a game made by a Witch, I fear for the future of the Anti-fantasy fanbase. We're just going down so hard I can almost hear how Featherine alias 'AuthorAvatar' is laughing at us...

You know why Battler's death has nothing to do with those rules? Because that's what happened in the world outside the catbox. No red texts, no magic, no 'gameboard rules' and certainly no 'character death'. That, as far as Umineko as a whole was concerned, happened outside Rokkenjima's mistery, 'In real Life' so to speak. He got brain damage. He stopped believing himself Battler. Arguably, he got better after some decades. Calling it 'personality death' like in-gameboard is just pulling an Irony as a Name.

Right, so, you just proved the utter stupidity of even discussing Battler's death in red. Which means... wait, what are you talking about? Because Battler's idiotic stupid amnesia only even works in that context.

Shouldn't we be applying greater realistic scrutiny to something not inside the catbox?